Dear Chandra
SLS and ourselves (SOLEIL) are dealing rather often with large unit cells and
fancy crystal orientations. No great secret, and things have already been
mentioned: combining three-axis goniometry, large area Pixel detector, low
background, small wedges and/or helical scans,
Dear All,
We have no internal candidates for the following position suitable either for a
researcher with a MSc or a junior postdoc with experience in protein
purification and possibly protein crystallization and crystallography.
The project:
Siderophore mediated iron uptake in Erwinia
We also described how to bend the loops in this article: http://doi.org/gcb8j3
Figure 4 specifically.
On 21/08/2019 18:21, Edwin Pozharski wrote:
In the absence of such you can resort to carefully bending the loop or bending
the pin (Jim Holton made a nifty device for bending the pin) while
Dear all,
Our laboratory (www.thelucalab.org) is recruiting postdoctoral researchers
interested in (1) studying the structural mechanisms of Notch receptor
activation and (2) designing biologics to control Notch activity on
specific tissue types. We use a multidisciplinary approach that
>
>
> In the absence of such you can resort to carefully bending the loop or
> bending the pin (Jim Holton made a nifty device for bending the pin) while
> keeping the xtal bathed in the cold stream.
>
>
I would also mention these
I guess I should just reply with “B.” since you replied with A. :-)
More seriously,
Both A & B will need to have real hard proof of their claims as this is a real
mess in which they got themselves into.
It seems as A despite not been hired by B succeeded in getting another
position, which is
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 19:35, Vijayakumar Rajendran <
vijayakumar.thenilgi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Eleanor,
> Thanks a lot. Its working great..
>
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 17:12, Eleanor Dodson <
> 176a9d5ebad7-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Here is the reason!
>>
>> Col Sort
I find the message in my original e-mail has changed, perhaps by hackers, and
here I resend it as following:
Dear all:
A has sought a job in the lab of B. B invited A for a interview with a PPT oral
presentation, as requested A has sent the PPT on the structural biology
research of XXX to B by
Being denied a job because someone else published your research may make the
dance also somewhat less happy…
Herman
Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Mark J
van Raaij
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. August 2019 11:48
An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Betreff: [EXTERNAL]
Another problem is that the structure was apparently originally not cited
properly, and now still cited as work from the lab of B, rather than as work of
A...
Mark J van Raaij
Dpto de Estructura de Macromoleculas
Centro Nacional de Biotecnologia - CSIC
calle Darwin 3
E-28049 Madrid, Spain
tel.
From the story, it seems to be a bit more complicated than that, using not only
a deposited public-domain PDB, but also other data transferred confidentially
(undeposited pdb and oral and written reports). This does seem unethical to me.
I have to admit we only have one side of the story
If the structure has been deposited in the PDB and thus is public ally
available, B (or F, G, Φ, Ξ, Δ, Α or whoever else) has every right to use it in
a publication.
“A” should follow the advice of Frank and do a happy dance for the usefulness
of the work, or if not feeling like dancing she/he
If A had deposited it to the PDB immediately, he'd have had been able to claim
the kudos and help lots of scientists besides B.
How is it that we structural biologists still are so precious about our
coordinates? Or more to the point, that the supervisors still don't teach
their students that
Dear all:
A has sought a job in the lab of B. B invited A for a interview with a PPT oral
presentation, as requested B has sent the PPT on the structural biology
research of XXX to B by e-mail, and presented in front of A and his
postdoctoral researcher.
After interview, B requested all
Structural genomics efforts have been putting PDBs in the public domain for
almost 2 decades - precisely so they'd be used. That's the whole point of the
PDB, and open repositories: set the data free, so it can make science happen.
"A" should be delighted that their work have actually been
Something is unclear to me in the original question. What does “has used his
pdb for a publication” mean? Somebody used an entry already in the PDB?
Somebody used a “.pdb” coordinates file for publication (without “.mtz”)? What
was and is the relationship between A and B?
In any case, assuming
Dear Flemming,
This would be an intellectual property dispute. A is cleaning that B has used
his IP without agreement. Most universities (and I assume other organisations)
have IP policies that protect staff from having there IP stolen; the IP
nominally belongs to the institution so the theft
On 20/08/2019 14:31, Vijayakumar Rajendran wrote:
I have a problem in viewing electron density map by opening .mtz file in coot. Actually I have a PDB
cordinates of water molecules of my protein using Hollow program. I generated the .mtz file using SFall
program in CCP4i by providing the cryst
Dear Flemming,
As I understand it (I may be wrong), the final responsible institutions are
those where the authors work. But as you say, they sometimes don't even reply -
or they just may be very slow because they want to be really sure before
committing to any answer.
But the journal has a
Dear Flemming,
As Jürgen said, what happened? Did A deposit the coordinate file in the pdb,
but did not publish and did B take this coordinates and make a publication? Or
did B ask A for the coordinates to have a look at and then made a publication
without agreement of A? Did B hack the
Dear Daniel,
I could not disagree with you more. As scientists it falls to us to support our
colleagues (from whatever other discipline) when they provide evidence that has
profound ramifications for humanity.
Would we hesitate to stand by colleagues who (for example) demonstrate the
efficacy
21 matches
Mail list logo
